Attorney General Eric Holder report edly will appoint a special prosecutor to bring cases against low-level CIA officers and contractors who questioned post-9/11 terrorist suspects.

It’s a move he’ll likely regret.

Not least because such cases may lead agents to be overly soft on future suspects, out of fear of prosecution. That could lead to missed chances to get potentially life-saving information.

Anyway, aggressive interrogation was wisely OK’d for limited use in the most pressing cases against key suspects.

Holder is said to want a narrow probe, focusing on alleged instances where officials “went beyond the techniques that were authorized.” But that’s a fine line — involving difficult moral judgments.

The AG himself testified last spring that the interrogators’ intent is a key factor. And no one has disputed former Vice President Dick Cheney’s recent defense of those tactics — that they were used for the sole purpose of obtaining “specific information on terrorist plans.”

“With many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance,” he said, “we didn’t think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.”

As 9/11 fades from memory, the urgency of those days is increasingly pooh-poohed. But President Obama, upon taking office, said he wanted to put the issue of interrogations behind him. Now Holder seems ready to resurrect it.